Last visited

Community Reputation

About GhostFaceKilla

Im really sad about Atomic. The magazine meant so much to me and I have been buying it pretty much since issue 1. It was exactly what I wanted - great tech reviews and generally great writing and some absolutely fantastic articles over the years. Atomic the magazine never ever talked down to its reader - it pushed the boundaries just enough and you always ended up learning about something new. The magazine had respect for its readers. It really felt that I was part of that. personally I think that David has done a wonderful job recently. I really cant fault him. Its a real shame that I havent met him yet but maybe one day. A man of integrity which reflected on the magazine. Publishing sux at the moment and the niche computing market sux further (for a number of reasons) and I dont think any staff at Atomic should feel that they have done anything wrong. I am glad that I was part of the last golden age of hardcore PC gaming and tech.
The forum has always been a place for me to drop into and just listen in and most often learn. You could be who you wanted - no one really cared. You could be yourself. I think the mods have pretty much always done a great job. On the one or two times I have ever been pulled up it was always without fail for a valid reason. I took it, acknowledged it and learnt from it. It made me a better person. Thank you.
I have some great memories of Atomic. I think just knowing that there is a place where you can vent is great even if you never do. But theres been some great laughs. Some explosive disscussions (Leonid?) and a whole lot of learning. And its always been great when you can provide a solution to some elses tech problem. Which was always part of Atomic - a place people can supoort each other. And a big thank you to those who have helped me.
Im a gamer at heart - my special memories will always be with the Atomicans I have played with over the years especially in AC-DC and through BF2 and most recently through BF3 (which I will reinstall soon). So many to mention but you know who you are. So many laughs. BF2 particularly was an absolute blast and I can honestly say that some of the best game experiences of my life ever where playing BF2 with ACDC. Similarly some totally hilarious sesisons with BF3. Much respect.
Anyway thats all I want to say. Atomic IMHO was the best enthusiast PC magazine in the country. But it was born in a different time. It was a time of real LANS in a friends garage till the sun came up. Of learning to overclock out of necessity because tech was so damm expensive and because each new game was pushing the boundaries of what was possible. Of learning to case mod again because you had too - cases came with one fan and terrible cooling options. Games came in big boxes with big manuals that rivalled War and Peace. They were great to read on the toilet. I coudl go on. Anyway. Lots of love to all. And all the best for the future.

fixed
Actually, if you spend some time reading all those books in the university library, you'd know that Kemalist politics would be regressive if applied to the West.
The world does not need Kemal Attaturk. Just the Islamic world and a few highly fundamentalist Christian countries like Uganda.
You need to stop thinking in black/white etc.
Attaturk was a man very much of his time and context. Yet for his time and his context he was truly revolutionary.
He was a man of extraordinary courage, conviction, faith and humilty. In short he was one of those rare individuals that was able to articulate a vision that was based in reason and respect. What would he say to day about the state of things?
Thats what we need. People who have a vision based in respect for others and respect for reason and who can articulate that vision and inspire others around them to be better.
So yes . . . the world needs more people like that.

Right so again my dear Emeritus Professor of Lying... given that Israel is a modern democratic society and the fact that non_Israeli Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, would it be fair to say that there is no apartheid whatsoever in any aspect of Israel, including in the occupation which is bound by the laws of the Fourth Geneva Convention to uphold the laws of the occupied peoples?
Im sorry which part dont you agree with? No seriously. EVERYONE else is wrong and Isreals interpretation is correct?
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]
What you dont seem to get is that some of are hoping that a Palestinain state can emerge that has strong institutional building blocks that can resist extremisim and work in a spirit of cooperation with its neighbours. It is a realistic hope for peace and reason to prevail. All that is coming from your end is hate, anger, aggression, violence and vitriol. As they say, if your not part of the solution then your part ofd the problem.

No you haven't. You've provided links to people saying they've heard a mate say that an Israeli minister was admiring certain aspects of the system.
So now your calling the Prime Minister of another country a liar as well? Have you no shame? Everyone is a liar.
Trouble is mate you ignore everything anybody else puts up. Heres some bits from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48 - that you were too arrogant to read too.
Just for some balance.
----
According to former Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had described to him "at length" that he felt the "bantustan model" was the most appropriate solution to the conflict in the West Bank.[205] The term “Bantustan” historically refers to the separate territorial areas designated as homelands under the South African apartheid State. Adam and Moodley explain that Israeli officials such as Sharon and Ehud Barak used the analogy "self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations" and that they have repeatedly deplored the occupation and seeming 'South Africanization', yet "have done everything to entrench it".[6]
Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin, discussed Israeli practices in the West Bank in an article published in the Israeli daily Yediot Acharonot. Aloni wrote that "Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies."[206]
Yossi Sarid, who served as environment minister under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, writing in Haaretz stated that "the white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid."[9]
Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[207] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."[208]
Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories" in an essay published in Haaretz.[209]
Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[140] and journalist, Amira Hass.[210] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."[211]
A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa."[212]
Academic and political activist Uri Davis, an Israeli citizen who describes himself as "a Palestinian Hebrew national of Jewish origin, anti-Zionist, registered as Muslim and a citizen of an apartheid state — the State of Israel."[213] has written several books on the subject, including Israel: An Apartheid State in 1987.[38]
Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B'Tselem and founding director of Bat Shalom writes in her 2002 book Next Year in Jerusalem, "I'm not sure if the use of the term apartheid helps us to understand the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel or the oppression against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure the discussion about how we are like or unlike South Africa helps move us forward to a solution. But the comparison reminds us that hundreds of laws do not make discrimination just and that the international community, the same international community we want to belong to, did not permit the perpetuation of apartheid. And it doesn't matter how we explain it and how many articles are written by Israeli scholars and lawyers—there are two groups living in this small piece of land, and one enjoys rights and liberty while the other does not."[214]
In October 2000, a group of Israeli Jews living in London signed a statement, initiated by Moshé Machover, describing Israel's policies in the occupied territories as apartheid.[215] In a later essay, Machover, co-founder of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist Organization and professor of philosophy in London, warned against "an unthinking use of this misleading analogy between Israeli policy and that of the defunct apartheid regime in South Africa." Accepting that "the two have many features in common", Machover concluded that Zionism, which aimed to "eliminate, exterminate or expel" Palestinians, rather than to exploit them, "is far worse than apartheid. Apartheid can be reversed. Ethnic cleansing is immeasurably harder to reverse; at least not in the short or medium term."[216]
Retired Israeli judge and legal commentator for the daily Yedioth Ahronoth Boaz Okon wrote in June 2010 that events in Israel, when taken together, constituted apartheid and fascism. Okon used as examples segregated schools and streets, a "minute" proportion of Israeli Arabs employed in the civil service, censorship, limits on foreign workers having children in Israel and the monitoring of cell phones, email and Internet usage.[217]
Danny Rubinstein, a columnist at Ha'aretz reportedly likened Israel to apartheid South Africa during a United Nations conference at the European Parliament in Brussels on 30 August 2007, stating: "Israel today was an apartheid State with four different Palestinian groups: those in Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israeli Palestinians, each of which had a different status."[218]
In an article in Haaretz in October 2010, Israeli journalist and academic Zvi Bar'el wrote that "Israel's apartheid movement is coming out of the woodwork and is taking on a formal, legal shape. It is moving from voluntary apartheid, which hides its ugliness through justifications of "cultural differences" and "historic neglect" which only requires a little funding and a couple of more sewage pipes to make everything right — to a purposeful, open, obligatory apartheid, which no longer requires any justification."[219]
Israeli poet, author and journalist Yitzhak Laor wrote in 2009 that Israel had a form of apartheid with a supporting system "more ruthless" than that seen in South Africa. He argued that the "lie" of the system being temporary makes it harder to oppose, and that because the existing situation has the political support of Israeli voters the US government will not oppose it with conviction.[220]
Professor Daniel Blatman[221] of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has said that the aim legislation passed in the Knesset around 2009-2011 was a gradual establishment of an apartheid state in Israel, and future separation of Jews and non-Jews "on a racial basis". He drew parallels to the establishment of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and also racial separation laws passed by the Nazis. According to Blatman in all cases, individual laws were argued for using reasoned arguments but the overall effect of the legislation was racist.[222] In 2011 Alon Liel, former director general of the ministry of foreign affairs of Israel, compared legislation under consideration in the Knesset to laws of apartheid-era South Africa. The legislation under consideration would, if passed, place limits on NGOs operating in Israel, in effect restricting funding from foreign sources to Israeli human rights groups. According to Liel, this legislation was reminiscent of the South African "Affected Organisations Act", and was aimed at organizations "fighting to preserve what remains of Israeli democracy".[223] In June 2012, Liel expressed his support for a cultural boycott of Israel, as a means of pressure to bring about "Palestinian independence, not an Israeli apartheid state".[224]
In August 2010, Israeli-born academic Ran Greenstein, based at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, argued that Israel (referring to the single differentiated regime governing both pre-1967 and post-1967 territories) is a form of 'apartheid of a special type', displaying systematic exclusion of Palestinians on an ethnic - not racial - basis, and yet is different in some respects from the original South African model of apartheid. The differences have to do with the use of indigenous labor power by settlers (much more common in South Africa than in Israel), and the more rigid identity boundaries between groups in Israel. Consequently, this type of apartheid displays greater tendency towards physical exclusion of indigenous people (affecting to varying degrees Palestinian citizens, residents under occupation and refugees) than was the case for indigenous people under South African apartheid.[225]
Israeli writer Uri Avnery said in a 2012 interview that in his view, Israel was an apartheid state. He said apartheid was "full" in the occupied territories and "growing" inside Israel's borders. According to Avnery, if it goes on, it will be "incontestably" full

I hear what your saying - and just on that I work daily at the moment with Palestinian and Israeli Jewish Phd Law students - and we all get on and its very cool - they are all 'educated' (in the sense that they are all trained in a methodology of analysis) which makes a difference :-) There are a number of exciting projects going on at the moment dealing with state and relationship building in the West Bank particularly ( to do with legal education which is my current research area) established through UNSW. I did provide evidence of some of this stuff and was unfortunately called a liar - depsite the evidence. Oh well. I did say to Tinbane that evidence (at least to have something to focus on and talk about) never matters with some people . . .
But ultimately I am interested in the actual building blocks of a society - its institutions for example and how they are constituted and who controls them and how. Secondly I am interested in comparing and contrasting - and seeking objectivity. At the end of the day what you need to interpret the world around you is a context or schema. The benefit of actually engaging with those members is simply to see directly how those instituions actually operate in practice. For example there is nothing intrinsically bad about a wall - except for the imagery it conveys - the wall is judged by how it affects people lives. I dont need to be at the wall to see this (modern technology yay). Furthermore If I was there then my opinion is weak anyway as I am not of that context and risk interpreting the situation from a preconcieved cultural context I bring with me.
So 'being there' especially when trying to be objective about the 'big picture' is not always the best things.
Oh and I accept totally that there is far more freedom in Israel. Israel is for all intents and purposes a modern 'democratic' society - its Basic Laws have regualraly been interported by the Israeli Supreme Court in a very liberal manner. Totally (it of course has its problems much like Australia - Pluralism can be difficult) . But again there is the question of those Palestinians . . . . and what the hell to do.

That's a funny statement to make from a guy who claims to love rights and freedoms but wants to give Hamas control of 7 million people.
And I reference this as an example yet again of how not to operate - For example I have never ever said this statement - I want to "give Hamas control of 7 million people". He just made it up to shift discussoin away from a substantive human matter . . . .
Hilarious.
Of course what he wont say is that my love of freedom extends to protecting this persons right to speak - and I will defend that even if I dissagree with him.

Just one quick comment which may not have been clear (its difficult because some posters dont actually address issues in a specific manner and instead go off on tangents with out addressing the issue presented) - but any refernce s I have made to any notion of an 'apartheid' structure refers to the situation in the Occupied Territories - I am not talking about the situation within Israel (though racisim is prevalent in some parts).
I am afraid that one of the posters here is yet vagain showing his ability to reda something glancingly without actually reflecting on what they are reading ( I have noted this a couple of time in regards to quotes he has thrown up - he says they say one thing yet they actually say something very different - which he then ignores).
In line with this the poster posted this:
----
1. A Bantustan is a geographical region.
2. A Bantustan is a "self-governing" territory
3. A Bantustan contains a racially segregated society apart from the "host" nation.
4. A Bantustan contains people the "host" nation does not want in its own borders for racial reasons.
All of the above must be true in the context of the Bantustan model. Nothing Israel has ever proposed has ever been based on the above.
----
Trouble is, all 4 of these apply to Gaza and the West Bank :-)
I provided links to Isreali Prime ministers and politicians talking about how this model was the best for Israell and how they admired aspects of the SA aprthaeid system.
I provided my opinion - which deomnstrated knowledge, objectivity and understanding of the subtley and nuances of the political world in which we live. I have never ever taken a 'side'.
Trouble is we have someone running around ranting basically calling anyone that he doesnt agree with (or more correctly who doesnt agree with him) an "idiot" and a "liar" and all the rest of it. Doesnt matter if your Jewish yourself, or have two PhD's, have written 12 books, are held in the highest regard academically, it doesst matter if you have addressed US Congress or the UN General Assembly and work at the highest diplomatic post possible. It doesnt matter that you have studied and dedicated years of your life to law, politcis and conflict studies. It doesnt matter if you are called upon to advise Prime Ministers. Etc, etc etc.
Nope.
Read yourself people - I have provided plenty of links. Just read honestly.
Im out.

False logic. I dont need to live through a nuclear war to know I dont want to live through a nuclear war :-)
I presented information. Which you should read. In it entirety. With an open mind. Then reflect critically.
This is all I ask :-)

Naive?
Well firtsly, I never said Israel was an apartheid state. What I did say, is that Israel was influneced by the South African system as a way to manage their own affairs. I stand by that comment 100%. Which aspects they adopted in part or whole or in which manner I did not disscuss.
A key aspect of this was the Bantustan model model I disscussed above - that this was an aspect of Israeli polictical thinking is now undisputed - have a look at this as a primer :-) http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/featu...-s-hope-1.10275
Secondly - well this is actually a massice area of disscussion so I would consdider you naive if you have never actually thought about it.
The fact is that numerous UN investigations have identified aspects of the Israel/Palestine situation as having apartheid aspects. In fact langauge used has included 'ethnic cleansing'. In March 2011, Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights described the continued illegal settlements and forced eviction of Palestinains as a form of 'ethnic cleansing' (which I have alluded to before - the policy is to have a majority of Jews in these areas over time).
There is an extraordinary amount of information here on the issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48 - it really is quite comphrehensive and well worth looking at if you want to understand the issue and make up your own mind. Especially consider that the leading text in the field is cited regularly. Especially consider the amonut of commens that come from Israeli sources :-)
As it is there are far more people who accept the analogy than oppose it at least on rational grounds. Including the key UN players. Many of these views are rationally based.
However in my opinion I think the situation between Isreal and the Palestinians is "unique" - in some ways I have more in common with some of the critics of the analogy - the rational ones I mean - they dont agree that Israel is a apartrheid state in the classic sense and reject that term as being applicable. It doesnt mean that they dont have serious issues with the situation of course, nor do they deny that Isreal was influenced by how other countries dealt with their ethnic "problems". But they dont call it an 'apartheid state'.
I agree - to a point. On close analysis I believe that there are many aspects that are similar to an 'apartheid state' and many of these aspects are generally invisible to the casual observer (I guess this is where being in my lofty academic tower is of some assistance?). These are often based around process and administrative matters for example - the real way to look at how things 'are'. But that doesnt make it an apartheid state in the classic sense that we automatically associate. What I do contend however, and this is almost non controversial is that, as I have stated, Israel was influenced by aspects of the South African apartheid state - it took what it wanted from a number of different system and adapted this to their own specic needs based upon their own sense of place (for example the Jews have always seen themselves as having more moral legitimacy that the whites in South Africa). It is somewhat alarming then that so many Israeli politicians themselves have openly talked about Israel being based on apartheid.
Naive??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48
Have a read. With an open mind. Then think.

From todays Sydney Morning Herald discussing what some of us already know and feared.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-moves-o...1201-2annr.html
and from the NY times with more info and links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/world/mi...rss&src=igw
Isreal is continuing with 'illegal settlements' within 3 hours of the UN vote. The have been strongly rebuked about this including from their own supporters in the US for example. The action has ben described by all as provocative and a hinderance to peace and developing a viable 2 state solution.
Isreal had previously threatened publicly that they would undermine the PA if they went ahead with the UN vote.
As has been noted repeatedly, the issue of the illegal settlements encroaching onto Palestinian teritory is of considerable importance.
For a basic overview of the settlement issue see this from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/26/...E56P0C720090726
Of interest check the UK's policy position in regards to this and some other aspects of Isreali policy (from the Officla UK Foriegn office website) : http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/men...onal-community/
Another perpsective of the geopolitical aspects from the BBC - the issue is land and water - and there is a suggestion that the lands currently under occupation were always lands that were claimed by the original Zionist movement - when these werent originally given they saw an oppurtunity to take them by war. Great article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11101797
which leads to this: As has beeen recognised the policy of Israel is too continue with these settlements in order to over time ensure that in the current occupied territories there will in fact be a majority of Jews vis the Arabs thereby hindering further any Palestinain claims.
So - the first round has to go to the PA here - Israel responded with further provocative action. Then some terrorist will respond and then Isreal can say "I told you so?". Lets see. But so far a very very poor start from Israel.
And if yet again people dont consider the action illegal - well unfortunately the rest of the world does not agree. Israel doesnt consider it illegal because it is selective as to how it has interpreted international law at least in this matter :-)
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...eli_settlements
------
I have noted a couple of time how Isreali policiticans were influenced by aspects of the Apartheid structure in South Africa. Not just in the building of walls, and seperate roads and restrictions of movement and so forth but in how to organise the people that they were attempting to control in the most effeicient manner. The method that underpins the philosophy of Isreal is based on this - Bantustan - have a look :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan
For an really intersting academic piece on this see Hunter, Jane, 'Isreal and the Bantustans' (1986) 15(3) Journal of Palestine Studies 543.
then go and do some more searching about Bantustan, apartheid and Israel :-)

Just finished watching this. Dont really know what the fuss is about him. He seems to have a hit a chord with a particular crowd, but I dont find that he ever says anything insightful or unique. He just critiques religion a lot.And goes on a few horribly balanced rants sometimes And is a comedian. Oh well.
Unfortunately the poster of the video describes the peace process as "futility" which unfortunately defines a preconcieved view of things. Personally the point is to UNDERSTAND what the problems on both sides are and then move forward. I do not see futility. Futility only exists if you stay in the present once identifying a problem
Just a couple of quick observations - GAZA is not the West Bank. There are massive differences between the two areas. Its unfortunate that when people focus on the violence in Gaza led by Hammas Terrorists they in advertently tar all Palestinains. This is itself a problem - the Palestinian leadership is not as strong and stable as it needs to be. There are some reasons for this I believe, however it has also been a feature of the conflict for a long time. My other issue with Condell and he does this here is that in his attempt at consciously producing sound bites of an acceptable size for to be consumed by out hipster adhd generation he glosses over significant things too quickly meaning that intentionally or not some of his stuff comes out as bordeline 'propaganda' - delivered in a fervour which is ironically almost religious. For example he completely ignores the issue of illegal land settlement in the West Bank, preferring to focus exclusively on removing settlement from Gaza as somehow being representative. Furthermore when focusing on the hardline Hammas approach with negitioans he completely disregarded the equally hardline Israeli appraoch for example with respects of the settlemenst loicated throughout the West Bank. In such a video we witness Condell having what is ostensibly a rant about islamists but which in fact comes out as a propaganda pro Israel piece precisley because in that neck of the woods religion and politics are so intertwined. Is it a problem? Yes.
Nevertheless at a 'base' level he is correct. Hammas are a significant concern. Totally. My response though is that I seee Hammas as a SYMPTOM rather than the actual problem. And if Condell actually reflected on the role of religion in society and under what conditions extremism is born then he too may want to reconsider his rant in this video.